| Mr. Carl W. S. Chun | Director | |
| Mr. Lee Cates | Analyst |
| Mr. Fred N. Eichorn | Chairperson | |
| Mr. Melvin H. Meyer | Member | |
| Mr. Donald P. Hupman, Jr. | Member |
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That his undesirable discharge (UD) be upgraded to honorable.
APPLICANT STATES: That he is making this request solely on his exemplary record during the time he served in the Army from 1972 until he received his discharge in 1977. He indicates that he was injured sometime in 1973, resulting in a herniated disc. In April 1976, he had surgery for this condition that led to complications, resulting in being given a 100 percent (sic) profile. He became depressed because he had aspirations of going to airborne and ranger schools. He relates how his marital problems led to his absence without leave (AWOL) and subsequent discharge. He turned himself into the military police at Malmstrom Air Force Base, Montana and was transported to Fort Ord, California. He was told he would be court-martialed and more than likely be reduced in rank. He opted for a chapter 11 (sic).
EVIDENCE OF RECORD: The applicant's available military records show:
During the period 29 December 1972 to 29 September 1974, he served in the Army on active duty. He completed his required training and was awarded military occupational specialty 11B (Light Weapons Infantryman) and received an honorable discharge.
On 30 September 1974, he reenlisted in the Army.
On 17 December 1976, upon completion of an ordinary leave, he went into AWOL status and remained until he surrendered on 9 March 1977.
Although the discharge proceedings are not in the available records, the evidence shows court-martial charges were preferred for his being AWOL for the period 17 December 1976 to 9 March 1977. He indicated on 4 April 1977 that he had undergone a separation medical examination more than 3 working days prior to his depart from the place of separation and that there had been no change in his medical condition.
The appropriate separation authority approved his separation with a UOTHC discharge, issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate and directed his reduction to pay grade E-1. He was reduced to pay grade E-1 effective 11 April 1977.
On 19 April 1977, the applicant was discharged, with a UOTHC discharge, under the above-cited regulation. His DD Form 214 (Armed Forces of the United States Report of Transfer or Discharge) indicates he had 4 years and 29 days of creditable service and 98 days of lost time.
Army Regulation 635-200, then in effect, set forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Chapter 10, of that regulation, provided, in pertinent part, that a member who had committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment included a punitive discharge could at any time after the charges had been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. At the time of the applicant’s separation, the regulation provided for an UOTHC discharge with the issuance of an Undesirable Discharge Certificate.
Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted Personnel), paragraph 3-7 provides that an honorable discharge is a separation with honor. The honorable characterization is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for Army personnel, or is otherwise so meritorious that any other characterization would be inappropriate.
DISCUSSION: Considering all the evidence, allegations, and information presented by the applicant, together with the evidence of record, applicable law and regulations, it is concluded:
1. The applicant’s contentions have been duly noted by the Board; however, he chose to request an administrative discharge rather than risk the consequences of a court-martial. Although he may now feel that he made the wrong choice, he should not be allowed to change his mind at this late date.
2. The applicant’s administrative separation was accomplished in compliance with applicable regulations with no indication of procedural errors that would tend to jeopardize his rights.
3. The type of discharge directed and the reasons therefore were appropriate considering all the facts of the case.
4. In order to justify correction of a military record, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of the Board, or it must otherwise satisfactorily appear, that the record is in error or unjust. The applicant has failed to submit evidence that would satisfy this requirement.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no basis for granting the applicant's request.
DETERMINATION: The applicant has failed to submit sufficient relevant evidence to demonstrate the existence of probable error or injustice.
BOARD VOTE:
________ ________ ________ GRANT
________ ________ ________ GRANT FORMAL HEARING
_DPH____ _FNE___ _MHM__ DENY APPLICATION
| CASE ID | AR2002068664 |
| SUFFIX | |
| RECON | |
| DATE BOARDED | 20020716 |
| TYPE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DATE OF DISCHARGE | |
| DISCHARGE AUTHORITY | |
| DISCHARGE REASON | |
| BOARD DECISION | DENY |
| REVIEW AUTHORITY | |
| ISSUES 1. | 144 |
| 2. | |
| 3. | |
| 4. | |
| 5. | |
| 6. |
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002070819C070402
EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: Charges were preferred against the applicant on 27 December 1976 for being AWOL from 30 October 1972 to 24 December 1976. However, in addition to his service in Vietnam from 8 November 1970 until he was granted emergency leave on 21 December 1970, the Board also reviewed his record of service which included 2084 days of lost time due to AWOL.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070018857
THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, STATEMENT, AND EVIDENCE: 1. On 9 July 1974, the applicant was honorably discharged. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002076496C070215
APPLICANT REQUESTS: That the deceased former service member’s (FSM’s) undesirable discharge be upgraded to honorable. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may, at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. However, at the time of the applicant's...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060008890C070205
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF: BOARD DATE: January 9, 2007 DOCKET NUMBER: AR20060008890 I certify that hereinafter is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records in the case of the above-named individual. In the absence of the applicant's chapter 10 discharge proceedings, the applicant's voluntary request for separation under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service, to avoid...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2002 | 2002071854C070403
The applicant requests correction of military records as stated in the application to the Board and as restated herein. EVIDENCE OF RECORD : The applicant's military records show: He stated that he was proud of his Vietnam service but was ashamed of the conduct which led to his court-martial and to his present situation.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070003033C071029
On 31 May 1977, the applicant was discharged accordingly. Chapter 10 of that regulation provides, in pertinent part, that a member who has committed an offense or offenses for which the authorized punishment includes a punitive discharge may at any time after the charges have been preferred, submit a request for discharge for the good of the service in lieu of trial by court-martial. The record clearly shows the applicant requested discharge to avoid a trial by court-martial that could...
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060002690C070205
The separation authority denied the applicant's request for discharge and returned his case for a court-martial. On 10 October 1974, the separation authority approved the applicant’s request for discharge and directed that he be furnished an undesirable discharge. Accordingly, the applicant was discharged under other than honorable conditions with an undesirable discharge on 1 November 1974 under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200, chapter 10, for the good of the service.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070000303C071029
The applicant requests, in effect, that his discharge be upgraded. On 24 November 1976, the applicant was discharged with an undesirable discharge and a characterization of service of under other than honorable conditions, in pay grade E-1, under the provisions of Army Regulation 635- 200, chapter 10, discharge in lieu of trial by court-martial. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2006 | 20060015479C071029
On 28 October 1977, the appropriate authority approved the applicant’s request and directed the applicant be furnished an Under Other than Honorable Conditions Discharge Certificate. Army Regulation 635-200 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted personnel. Army Regulation 635-200, paragraph 3-7b, provides that a general discharge is a separation from the Army under honorable conditions.
ARMY | BCMR | CY2007 | 20070005142
Item 21 (Time Lost), of his DA Form 2-1, shows that he was confined from 5 April 1976 to 13 July 1976 (100 days); was AWOL from 30 July 1976 to 8 August 1976 (10 days); was AWOL from 6 September 1976 to 16 September 1976 (11 days) and was AWOL from 2 December 1976 to 5 December 1976 (4 days). There is no evidence in the applicants records and the applicant has provided none, to show that he applied to the ADRB (Army Discharge Review Board) for an upgrade of his discharge within its 15-year...